Cancer is the second leading cause of human death next to coronary disease. Worldwide, millions of people die from cancer every year. In the United States alone, cancer causes the death of well over a half-million people annually, with some 1.4 million new cases diagnosed per year. While deaths from heart disease have been declining significantly, those resulting from cancer generally are on the rise. In the early part of the next century, cancer is predicted to become the leading cause of death.
Worldwide, several cancers stand out as the leading killers. In particular, carcinomas of the lung, prostate, breast, colon, pancreas, and ovary represent the primary causes of cancer death. These and virtually all other carcinomas share a common lethal feature. With very few exceptions, metastatic disease from a carcinoma is fatal. Moreover, even for those cancer patients who initially survive their primary cancers, common experience has shown that their lives are dramatically altered. Many cancer patients experience strong anxieties driven by the awareness of the potential for recurrence or treatment failure. Many cancer patients experience physical debilitations following treatment, and many experience a recurrence.
Generally speaking, the fundamental problem in the management of the deadliest cancers is the lack of effective and non-toxic systemic therapies. While molecular medicine promises to redefine the ways in which these cancers are managed, progress in this area has been slow despite intensive worldwide efforts to develop novel molecular diagnostics and therapeutics. Fundamental to these efforts is the search for truly tumor-specific genes and proteins that could be used as diagnostic and prognostic markers and/or therapeutic targets or agents.
As discussed below, the management of prostate cancer serves as a good example of the limited extent to which molecular biology has translated into real progress in the clinic. With limited exceptions, the situation is similar for the other major carcinomas mentioned above.
Worldwide, prostate cancer is the fourth most prevalent cancer in men. In North America and Northern Europe, it is by far the most common male cancer and is the second leading cause of cancer death in men. In the United States alone, well over 40,000 men die annually of this disease—second only to lung cancer. Despite the magnitude of these figures, there is still no effective treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. Surgical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, hormone ablation therapy, and chemotherapy continue to be the main treatment modalities. Unfortunately, these treatments are ineffective for many and are often associated with undesirable consequences.
Most prostate cancers initially occur in the peripheral zone of the prostate gland, away from the urethra. Tumors within this zone may not produce any symptoms and, as a result, most men with early-stage prostate cancer will not present clinical symptoms of the disease until significant progression has occurred. Tumor progression into the transition zone of the prostate may lead to urethral obstruction, thus producing the first symptoms of the disease. However, these clinical symptoms are indistinguishable from the common non-malignant condition of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
Early detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer currently relies on digital rectal examinations (DRE), prostate specific antigen (PSA) measurements, transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS), and transrectal needle biopsy (TRNB). At present, serum PSA measurement in combination with DRE represent the leading tool used to detect and diagnose prostate cancer. Both have major limitations which have fueled intensive research into finding better diagnostic markers of this disease.
Accordingly, the lack of a prostate tumor marker that can accurately detect early-stage, localized tumors remains a significant limitation in the management of prostate cancer. A similar problem is the lack of an effective prognostic marker for determining which cancers are indolent and which ones are or will be aggressive. PSA, for example, cannot accurately discriminate between these alternatives.
Although the serum PSA assay has been a very useful tool, its specificity and general utility is widely regarded as lacking in several important respects. For example, PSA is not a disease-specific marker, as elevated levels of PSA are detectable in a large percentage of patients with BPH and prostatitis (25-86%)(Gao et al., 1997, Prostate 31: 264-281), as well as in other nonmalignant disorders and in some normal men. Elevations in serum PSA of between 4 to 10 ng/ml are observed in BPH, and even higher values are observed in prostatitis, particularly acute prostatitis. BPH is an extremely common condition in men. Further confusing the situation is the fact that serum PSA elevations may be observed without any indication of disease from DRE, and visa-versa. In addition, PSA diagnostics have sensitivities of only between 57-79% (Cupp & Osterling, 1993, Mayo Clin Proc 68:297-306), and thus miss identifying prostate cancer in a significant population of men with the disease. Moreover, it is now recognized that PSA is not prostate-specific (Gao et al., supra, for review). Various methods designed to improve the specificity of PSA-based detection have been described, such as measuring PSA density and the ratio of free vs. complexed PSA. However, none of these methodologies have been able to reproducibly distinguish benign from malignant prostate disease.
Similarly, there is no available marker that can predict the emergence of the typically fatal metastatic stage of prostate cancer. Diagnosis of the metastatic stage is presently achieved by open surgical or laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy, whole body radionuclide scans, skeletal radiography, and/or bone lesion biopsy analysis. Clearly, better imaging and less invasive diagnostic methods would improve diagnostic accuracy, ease the burden such procedures place on patients, and open therapeutic options.
There are some known markers which are expressed predominantly in prostate, such as prostate specific membrane antigen (PSM), a hydrolase with 85% identity to a rat neuropeptidase (Carter et al., 1996, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93: 749; Bzdega et al., 1997, J. Neurochem. 69: 2270). However, the expression of PSM in small intestine and brain (Israeli et al., 1994, Cancer Res. 54: 1807), as well its potential role in neuropeptide catabolism in brain, raises concern of potential neurotoxicity with anti-PSM therapies. Preliminary results using an Indium-111 labeled, anti-PSM monoclonal antibody to image recurrent prostate cancer show some promise (Sodee et al., 1996, Clin Nuc Med 21: 759-766). More recently identified prostate cancer markers include PCTA-1 (Su et al., 1996, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93: 7252) and prostate stem cell antigen (PSCA) (Reiter et al., 1998, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 1735). PCTA-1, a novel galectin, is largely secreted into the media of expressing cells and may hold promise as a diagnostic serum marker for prostate cancer (Su et al., 1996). PSCA, a GPI-linked cell surface molecule, was cloned from LAPC-4 c DNA and is unique in that it is expressed primarily in basal cells of normal prostate tissue and in cancer epithelia (Reiter et al., 1998). Vaccines for prostate cancer are also being actively explored with a variety of antigens, including PSM and PSA.